Conservatives choose to freely share or not share what they have earned through charitable contributions (which conservatives give at a much higher rate than "compassionate" liberals). Liberals are great at sharing what OTHERS have earned and claiming credit for it.

Oh, and tell us about the extravagant charitable generosity of that absolute Christ-figure in your sig file, will you?

Who cares? It's a quote, nothing more, from a person; (not a "Christ-figure" whatever that means) who was an atheiest.

"Progress can come only out of men's surplus, that is: from the work of those men whose ability produces more than their personal consumption requires. "- Ayn Rand

Conservatives choose to freely share or not share what they have earned through charitable contributions (which conservatives give at a much higher rate than "compassionate" liberals). Liberals are great at sharing what OTHERS have earned and claiming credit for it.

That explains why the social safety net is so durable in red states, I assume, with abundant charity for everyone who needs it. Of course, deduct the orgs that don't do charity (lots of churches and church activities) from the sum total of charitable giving, and conservatives don't come out so well.

Churches don't do charity work? Really?

Care to back that up with something more than your biased assertion?

And what do you base this OTHER claim that conservatives "don't come out so well" after removing "orgs that don't do charity"? I'm sure you can show this to be fact rather than unsubstantiated claims, right?

Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

HockeyKluts wrote:Conservatives choose to freely share or not share what they have earned through charitable contributions (which conservatives give at a much higher rate than "compassionate" liberals). Liberals are great at sharing what OTHERS have earned and claiming credit for it.

They do? By all means, cite your source please.

“Don't join the book burners. Don't think you're going to conceal faults by concealing evidence that they ever existed. Don't be afraid to go in your library and read every book...” Dwight Eisenhower

Without reducing the enemy to nips, gooks, slopeheads, hadjis, or whatever slur is favored, we tend to see people as human, not a subhuman who deserves to see their family shot, their home blown apart, and their world destroyed. Without a duty to fight for our Exceptional freedom, we tend to see war crimes as well, criminal.

I had a good buddy who was all stars stripes gung ho blood and guts ROTC. He went off to "fight for our freedom" in Gulf War I. When he returned, he was shattered, a shell of his former self. He wept and confessed that one night he followed orders to fire on a village, they shot and shelled the place until morning. When they patrolled it the nest day, no enemies except dozens of dead women and children littered the rubble.

He is free now, taking his life, unable to endure his guilt. But maybe if he maintained the hadji slur, he would be a proud vet today.

That's heartbreaking. I'm sorry for your friend, and for all those innocent lives lost.

I can't say as I'd feel any different. It's devastating.

We had members of the press embedded with every unit during GW1. Wonder why we never heard about this village and all those civilian casualties.

Obama understands his constituents perfectly. They don't care what he does to the Constitution, the economy or his "enemies," as long as he provides them with gay marriage, legalized weed and a recharged EBT card the first of every month.

HockeyKluts wrote:Conservatives choose to freely share or not share what they have earned through charitable contributions (which conservatives give at a much higher rate than "compassionate" liberals). Liberals are great at sharing what OTHERS have earned and claiming credit for it.

HockeyKluts wrote:Conservatives choose to freely share or not share what they have earned through charitable contributions (which conservatives give at a much higher rate than "compassionate" liberals). Liberals are great at sharing what OTHERS have earned and claiming credit for it.

They do? By all means, cite your source please.

Just Google "are conservatives more charitable than liberals" and you'll get more references than you can say grace over.

Obama understands his constituents perfectly. They don't care what he does to the Constitution, the economy or his "enemies," as long as he provides them with gay marriage, legalized weed and a recharged EBT card the first of every month.

We had some pretty derogatory terms for the Viet Cong and the NVA when I served over there.

Lefties used to really scold us for "dehumanizing" the enemy.

Wonder what happened to this concern for humankind.

TF--

Another attempt at false equivalence?

Dehumanizing an entire culture or ethnic group is the same as calling one odious blowhard a "pig"? NOTE: Calling Limbaugh a pig Does Not equate to a lack of "concern for humankind".

If the Snout Fits...

baloney. It's just a matter of scale.

Rush is big but he's not that big!

BTW. At the time the lefties scolded us one of their favorite chants was "Off the pigs" referring of course to our fellow citizens, the Police.

The 1960's called, they want their hot button issues back.

Those who cannot or will not learn from the lessons of history are repeating them.

Obama understands his constituents perfectly. They don't care what he does to the Constitution, the economy or his "enemies," as long as he provides them with gay marriage, legalized weed and a recharged EBT card the first of every month.

Obama understands his constituents perfectly. They don't care what he does to the Constitution, the economy or his "enemies," as long as he provides them with gay marriage, legalized weed and a recharged EBT card the first of every month.

And what do you base this OTHER claim that conservatives "don't come out so well" after removing "orgs that don't do charity"? I'm sure you can show this to be fact rather than unsubstantiated claims, right?

Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

Arthur Brooks, President of American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. Hmmmm….I perceive no possible bias there. Compassionate Conservatism, at the time he wrote the book I wonder why he would have titled it that. It doesn’t sound very unbiased, it sound like someone who was sucking up to the Bush Administration in hopes of landing a cabinet position. Maybe some other lucrative do nothing post, like President of the American Enterprise Institute.

HockeyKluts wrote: The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

Surprise….that isn’t exactly what the book came up with. The book identified three elements as predictors of charitable giving. Religion, political values, and family structure. Presenting it as a Liberal/Conservative is an oversimplification. I personally, wouldn't dispute his predictors; however, I would dispute his objectivity and motivation.

HockeyKluts wrote:If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

He can register as the Easter Bunny, that won’t make his ears floppy.

Now to his “findings.”

HockeyKluts wrote:-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

In establishing the sample, how were these “conservative” heads of households identified? Was each respondent given a yardstick to use in evaluating their conservativeness? Did they even know what those terms mean? Much like Brook’s being an independent, they can call themselves conservative, liberal, of the Loch Ness Monster, that doesn’t make it so. Without knowing more about Brooks’ methods in establishing his sample, there is no way to really evaluate the validity of his study. Given his employer and his choice of book title, there is ample reason so suspect that his sample and methods may have been tainted.

HockeyKluts wrote:-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

Are those the real conservative, or the Easter Bunny ones?

HockeyKluts wrote:-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

Having established religion as a predicting factor, what percentage of the population in those states identifies itself as religious? In the states that went Kerry, what percentage identified themselves as religious and what was their rate of giving? The conclusion to be drawn may be about religion, not Liberal vs. Conservative. It is not necessarily as easy as Liberal/Conservative unless you are trying to skew the conclusion, its oversimplification.

HockeyKluts wrote:-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

Once again, without a better defined sample, this is a meaningless oversimplification. The only reason to bring it up would be to try to skew the conclusion.

HockeyKluts wrote:-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

Adjusted for religion? In one of those States, in one town, in one church, broken down into two groups of conservatives and liberal based on a clearly defined measure, what was the percentage of charitable giving? We don’t know, because that isn’t the sample Brooks established. It would be far more meaningful that what he did establish. Yet, it would still tell us little about the behavior of liberals and conservatives at the macro level.

HockeyKluts wrote:-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

Hmmm…income inequality. I wonder if we examined the samples of those who suggest the Government has a role, and those who don’t what we might find. I wonder if those who suggest the Government doesn’t have a role have an interest to protect. I wonder if, because of that interest, they have more to give than those who think the Government should reduce income inequality. Doesn’t really seem like a noteworthy conclusion to me.

“Don't join the book burners. Don't think you're going to conceal faults by concealing evidence that they ever existed. Don't be afraid to go in your library and read every book...” Dwight Eisenhower

bulletbob wrote:I love it, now Limbaugh can be banished forever. I think people have been waiting for an excuse to jump ship, now they have it. The secret is you never give the enemy any excuses, they usually dig their own grave, and in Limbaugh's case he has done just that, finally!!!

Social Progressives demand that many conservatives be removed from the airways or the editorial pages. They've attacked Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Rielly, Sean Hannity, Limbaugh of course, and I've read demands that people like George Will and Walter Williams have their columns removed from newspaper editorial pages.

At the same time they profess a belief in free speech, too.

One can only marvel at the machinations of the liberal mind.

I'm afraid you have a fundamental misunderstanding of free speech. Try again.

“Inflation does not appear to be monetary base driven,” -- Arthur Laffer 01/03/2014

HockeyKluts wrote:it's not near as compelling as 'Bryan says so", but that's a burden I'll just have to bear.

It is not, nor for that matter what you say, or what anyone else says.

Brooks’ book gives the appearance of an attempt to deliberately twist statistics to support a preordained conclusion. The methods appear less that scholarly. Brooks himself admits that there is probably more of a conclusion to be drawn about religion than politics.

“Don't join the book burners. Don't think you're going to conceal faults by concealing evidence that they ever existed. Don't be afraid to go in your library and read every book...” Dwight Eisenhower

Well I can read, and he used "compasionate conservatism" in his book title. You don't have to be a professor to perceive that there may be some sort of bias there. On the subject of professors, Ward Churchill was a "professor" at CU. There is no shortage of professors with their heads firmly planted up their posterior. Education, or lack of it, does not execpt one from bias.

HockeyKluts wrote:I'm probably wasting my time here based on historical precident. Do you have a citation to back up this claim?

Brooks: "No, it’s really not a question of politics per se — it goes much deeper, to the values that lie beneath political views. My book explores four areas of our culture that lead people to give, or not: religious faith, attitudes about the government’s role in our lives, the source of one’s income, and family. These are the big drivers of giving in America today, and the biggest is religion. " (National Review Online interview)

What historical precedent would that be?

“Don't join the book burners. Don't think you're going to conceal faults by concealing evidence that they ever existed. Don't be afraid to go in your library and read every book...” Dwight Eisenhower

HockeyKluts wrote:Of course bc67 doesn't challenge you on your lack of citations (or his own) because for you both, it's not about facts, it's purely about ideology. As such, double standards and burden of proof only applies to those who see the world differently than you do.

The liberal Credo, do as I say, not as I do.

You cite a study that seems clearly biased. It isn't even hard to find the bias. Why should we readers conclude that your citation isn't biased? You can try to deflect attention from it, but it is a citation that you made to prove your point. Pray tell, what do you know about my ideology, much less the scary liberals you claim to speak for?

“Don't join the book burners. Don't think you're going to conceal faults by concealing evidence that they ever existed. Don't be afraid to go in your library and read every book...” Dwight Eisenhower